# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 17 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
J.M ., Next Fri en d Kri st in e Mc Cau le y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Fran ci s Ho well Sch oo l Di st ric t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

10 , 20 17 Fil ed : M arch 7, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

On be ha lf of he r m in or so n, J.M
., Kris ti ne McC au le y s u e d Fran ci s Howel l Sch oo l Dis tri ct , cl ai m in g un la wfu l us e of is ol at io n an d ph y si cal res tra i n t s

. H e r

se co nd am en de d co m

pl ai nt as se rte d vi ol at io ns of : (1 ) th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se of th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t; (2 ) 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 88 ; (2 ) th e Am eri can s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12 18 2; (3 ) Sect io n 50 4 of th e Reh ab il it at io n Actof 19 73 ; an d (4 ) th e Mi ss ou ri Hum an Ri gh ts Act (MHRA)
, RSM o § 21 3.0 10 et se q.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e fed eral cl ai m s fo r “ la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on 1
fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s” an d de cl in ed to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er th e M H R A c la im
, di sm is si ng it wit ho ut pr ejud ic e. Hav in g 2 juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

In 20 11
, J.M

. be ga n ki nd erg art en in th e Fran ci s Howel l Sch oo l Dis tri ct

. J.M

. qu al ifi ed fo r se rv ic es un de r th e In di vi du al s with Dis ab il it ie s Edu cat io n Act (IDEA) ba se d on hi s di ag no se s o f at te nt io n de fic it hypera ct iv it y di so rd er, au ti sm sp ect ru m di so rd er, an xi et y di so rd er, se pa rat io n an x i e t y di so rd er, pa ni c di so rd er, Asp erg er’s/ au ti sm sp ect ru m di so rd er, an d ge ne ral iz ed an xi et y

. Se e 20 U.S.C. § 14 00
et s eq . Und er t he IDEA, J.M. h ad an Ind iv id ua li zed Edu cat io n P ro gr am (IEP).

The Ho no rab le Nan ne tt e A. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, to who m th e cas e was refe rred for fin al di sp os it io n b y
co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).

The pa rti es an d th e di st ric t co ur t tre at th e IDEA’ s ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t as 2 juri sd ic ti on al rat he r th an a cl ai m s- pr oc es si ng r u l e. Co mpa re Pay ne v. Peni ns ul a Scho ol Dis t. , 65 3 F.3 d 86 3, 87 0 (9 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ) (“ In su m , we ho ld th at th e

ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t in § 14 15 (l) is no t juri sd ic ti on al .”), wi th Pol er a v. Bd

. of Ed uc. of th e Newb ur

g h E n la rg ed Ci ty Scho ol Dis t. , 28 8 F.3 d 47 8, 48 3 (2 nd Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ A pl ai nt iff ’s fai l u r e to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s un de r th e IDEA d e p r i v e s a co ur t of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on .”). Here, ne it he r pa rty req ue st ed a
ru li ng on th is is su e. “ Bec au se th e Dis tri ct ha s n ot waiv ed th e ex ha us ti on arg um en t

an d

. . . [Mc Cau le y was ] req ui red to ex ha us t

. . . ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, [th is co ur t]

ne ed no t reac h th is is su e.” Se e J.B

. ex re l. Ba il ey v. Avi ll a R-XI II Scho ol Dis t. , 72 1 F.3 d 5 8 8
, 5 9 3 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), ci ti ng Mus kr at v. Deer Cr eek Pub

. Sc ho ol
, 71 5 F.3 d 77 5, 78 4- 85 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 13 ) (d ecl in in g to co ns id er whe th e r t h e I DEA’ s
ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t was juri sd ic ti on al be cau se th e pa rti es di d no t rai se th e is su e

an d t he de fen da nt s ar gu ed ex ha us ti on in th e d is tri ct co ur t).

-2

-McC au le y al le ge s th at be twee n Ja nu ary 2 0 1 2 an d Sep te m be r 20 14
, J.M

. rep eat ed ly was pl aced i n p h ysi cal res tra in ts an d is ol at io n wit ho ut he r kn owl ed ge

. Learn in g of th is
, sh e im m ed ia te ly co nt act ed th e Dis tri ct , req ue st in g res tra in ts on ly whe n ne ces sa ry an d no is ol at io n. On Sep te m be r 5, McC au le y rem ov ed J.M

. fro m th e Dis tri ct

.

McC au le y su ed in fed eral co ur t un de r th e IDEA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 88
,
a nd Mi ss ou ri co m

m on la w (to rts of ne gl ig en ce pe r se , fal se im pr is on m en t, an d ba tt ery). Sh e am en de d th e co m pl ai nt to ad d cl ai m s un de r th e ADA an d MHRA. The Dis tri ct an swe red
, cl ai m in g fai lu re to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s fo r th e fed eral

c l ai m s, an d so ve rei gn im m un it y fo r th e co m

m on la w to rt cl ai m s. McC a u l e y

vo lu nt ari ly am en de d he r co m pl ai nt , rem ov in g th e IDEA an d co m m on la w to rt cl ai m s. Her se co nd am en de d c o mp l a i nt th us in cl ud ed cl ai m s un de r th e Equ al Pro te ct io n Cl au se , 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 88
, th e ADA, Sect io n 50 4 of th e Reh ab il it at io n Act of 19 73 , and th e MHRA.

The Dis tri ct m ov ed to di sm is s, al le gi ng la ck of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s un de r th e IDEA. McC au le y arg ue d he r cl ai m s were no t un de r th e IDEA, an d th u s no t su bjec t to ex ha us ti on

. In th e al te rn at iv e, sh e as se rte d ex cep ti on s to th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t. The di st ric t co ur t
gr an te d t he m ot io n t o d is m is s.

I.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo whe th er ex ha us ti on of ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s was
req ui red

. J.B . e

x re l. Ba il

ey v. Avi ll

a R

- X I I I Scho ol Dis t. , 7 21 F.3 d 58 8, 59 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), ci ti ng Br ow n v. J.B

. Hunt Tra ns p. Ser vs ., In c. , 58 6 F.3 d 10 79
, 10 83 n.4 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

-3

-“ In the ID E A
, Co ngr es s es ta bli she d pr oc ed ur al sa feg ua rd s to ensur e ind ivi dua ls wit h di sa bi li ti es wil l ha ve th e op po rtu ni ty to ob ta in a fre e ap pr op ria te pu bl ic ed uc at io n (FAPE).” Id

. , ci ti ng 20 U.S.C. § 14 15 (a )

. One sa feg ua rd is an op po rtu ni ty
to pr es en t co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t th e pr ov is io n of a FAPE in “ an im pa rti a l d u e p r o c e ss he ari ng .” Id

. , qu ot in g Ho ni

g v. Doe , 4 84 U.S. 3 05 , 3 11 -1 2 ( 1 9 8 8 )

. Se e 20 U.S.C. § 14 15 (f)

. “ A pa rty ag gr ie ve d by th e ou tc om e of an IDEA du e pr oc es s he ari ng m ay ch al le ng e th e ou tc om e be fo re t he st at e ed uc at io na l re vi ew ag en cy .” J.B

. , 7 21 F.3 d

at 59 2, ci ti n g 2 0 U.S.C. § 14 15 (g )(1 )

. “ The ou tc om e of th e ad m in is tra ti ve rev ie w he ari ng m ay th en be di sp ut ed in di st ric t co ur t.” Id

. , ci ti ng 20 U.S.C. § 14 15 (i) (2 )(A)

.

The I D EA ’s ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t al so ap pl ie s to cl ai m s un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on , th e ADA, th e Reh ab il it at io n Act, an d ot he r fed eral la ws pr ot ect in g ch il dr en wit h di sa bi li ti es to th e ex te nt th os e cl ai m s se ek rel ie f “ th at is al so av ai la bl e

un de r [th e IDEA] .” 20 U.S.C. § 14 15 (l) ; Fr y v. Nap ol

eo n Cm ty

. Scho ol
, No. 15 -4 97
, 20 17 WL 68 55 33
, at *8 (U.S. Feb

. 22
, 20 17 ) (“ Sect io n 14 15 (l) req ui res th at a pl ai nt iff ex ha us t t he IDEA’ s p ro ced ur es be fo re fi li ng an act io n u nd er t he ADA, th e Reh ab il it at io n Act, or si m il ar la ws whe n (b ut on ly whe n) he r su it ‘seek [s ] rel ie f th at is al so av ai la bl e’ un de r th e IDEA.”); J.B

. , 72 1 F.3 d at 59 2 ( “[B ]e f o r e pa rti es m ay br in g a cl ai m in di st ric t co ur t un de r a di ffer e n t st at ut e fo r whi ch th ey se ek rel ie f

w h i ch is al so av ai la bl e un de r th e IDEA, th e pa rti es m us t fir st ex ha us t t h e ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s un de r th e IDEA.”). Afte r arg um en t in th is cas e, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at “ ‘reli ef tha t is als o ava il ab le ’ un de r th e IDEA” m ean s “ rel ie f fo r th e de ni al of a FAPE, be cau se th at is th e on ly ‘reli ef’ th e IDEA m ak es ‘avai la bl e.’” Fr y , 20 17 W L 68 55 33 , at * 8. Th us , “ ex ha us ti on is no t nece ss ary whe n t he gra va m en of th e pl ai nt iff ’s su it is so m et hi ng ot he r t h a n th e de ni al of th e IDEA’ s co re
gu aran te e—wh at th e Act ca l ls a ‘free ap pr op ria te pu bl ic ed uc at io n.’” Id

. , at *3
, qu ot in g § 1 41 2( a) (1 )(A)

.

“ [D]eterm in in g whe th er a su it in de ed ‘seek s’ r el i e f f o r [ de ni al of a FAPE], a

co ur t sh ou ld lo ok to th e su bs ta nc e, or gr av am en , of th e pl ai nt iff ’s co m pl ai nt .” Id

. ,

-4

-at *8

. The in qu iry “ do es no t rid e on whe th er a co m pl ai nt in cl ud es (o r, al te rn at iv el y ,
om it s) th e pr eci se wor ds (? ) ‘FAPE’ or ‘IEP.’ ” Id

. , at * 11

. Rat he r, “ [i]n add res si ng whe th er a co m

pl ai nt fit s th at de sc rip ti on , a co ur t sh ou ld at te nd to th e di ve rs e m ean s

an d en d s o f t h e st at ut es co ve rin g pe rs on s wit h di sa bi li ti es —t he IDEA on th e on e ha nd , th e ADA and Reh ab il it at io n Act (m os t n ot ab ly) on th e o th er.” Id

.

The IDEA, of co ur se , pr ot ect s on ly “ ch il dr en ” (wel l, real ly, ad ol es cen ts to o) an d co nc ern s on ly th ei r sc ho ol in g. § 14 12 (a)( 1) (A). And as earl ie r
no te d, th e st at ut e’s go al is to pr ov id e each ch il d wit h m ean in gf ul acce ss to ed uc at io n by of

feri ng in di vi du al iz ed in st ru ct io n an d rel at ed se rv ic es ap pr op ria te to he r “ un iq ue ne ed s.” § 14 01 (2 9) ; se e Row le y , 45 8 U.S., at 19 2, 19 8, 10 2 S. Ct

. 30 34 ; su pr a , at

–– –– . By co nt ras t, Tit le II of th e ADA an d § 50 4 of th e Reh ab il it at io n Act co ve r pe op le wit h di sa bi li ti es of al l ag es , an d do so bo th in si de a n d ou ts id e sc ho ol s. And th os e st at ut es ai m to ro ot ou t di sa bi li ty-bas ed d is cri m in at io n, en ab li ng each

co ve red pe rs on (s om et im es by m ea n s o f reas on ab le acco m m od at io ns ) to pa rti ci pa te eq ua ll y to al l ot h e r s i n p ub li c faci li ti es an d fed eral ly fu nd ed pro gr am s.

Id

. “A fu rth er si gn th at th e gr av am en of a su it is th e de ni al of a FAPE can em erg e fro m th e hi st or y of th e pr oc eed in gs

. In pa rti cu la r, a co ur t m ay co ns id er th at a pl ai nt iff ha s pr ev io us ly in vo ke d th e IDEA’ s fo rm al pr oc ed ur es to ha nd le th e di sp ut e.” Id

. , at *1 3.

II.

McC au le y di d no t fil e an IDEA du e pr oc es s co m pl ai nt , req ue st a du e pr oc es s he ari ng , o r e n g a g e in th e ex ha us ti on pr oc ed ur es un de r th e IDEA. Se e 20 U.S.C. §
14 15 (f), (g ), (l)

. Sh e arg ue s ex ha us ti on is no t req ui red b ecau se sh e do es no t se ek rel ie f av ai la bl e un de r th e IDEA. The qu es ti on he re is whe th er th e co m pl ai nt is ba se d

on th e Dis tri ct ’s de ni al of a FAPE. Fr y , 2 0 1 7 WL 68 55 33
, at *8 (“ [T]he th in g a

-5

-pl ai nt iff m

us t se ek in or de r to tri gg er § 14 15 (l) ’s ex ha us ti on ru le —i s rel ie f fo r th e de ni al of a FAPE.”).

Co ns id e r i n g “ su bs ta nc e, no t su rfac e,” th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th e co m pl ai nt se ek s rel ie f f

o r d e n ia l of a FAPE un de r th e IDEA. Id

. , at *1 1. The

se co nd am en de d co m

pl ai nt st at es , “ At al l ti m es m en ti on ed ab ov e, [J .M.] was en ti tl ed

to th e ed uc at io na l se rv ic es an d pr ot ect io ns av ai la bl e un de r th e In di vi du al s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Edu cat io n Act of 19 75 ” an d “ at al l ti m es [J .M. was ] en ti tl ed to reas on ab le

acco m m od at io ns ” fo r hi s d is ab il it ie s. It al le ge s th at “ [b ]etween Feb ru ary 20 14 an d Sep te m be r 5, 20 1 4
, J

. M

. was pl aced in ph y si cal res tra in ts fo r ha lf of th e ti m e he

act ua ll y sp e n t at Defen da nt ’s sc ho ol s.” It fu rth er st at es th at J.M

. was “ de ni ed

. . . b e c a u s e o f hi s di sa bi li ty, pa rti ci pa ti on in an d th e be ne fit s of a pu bl ic ed uc at io n.” The se al le ga ti on s sh ow th at th e co m pl ai nt was ba se d on th e “ de ni al of a FAPE” un de r th e IDEA. Se e id

. , at *1 3 (d et erm in in g th e Fry’ s co m pl ai nt “ al le ge s on ly di sa bi li tyba se d di sc riminat io n” an d “ co nt ai ns no al le ga ti on

. . accu s[ in g] th e sc ho ol ev en in

ge ne ral te rm s of refu si ng to pr ov id e th e ed uc at io na l in st ru ct io n an d se rv ic es th at E.F.

ne ed s” ).

“ As de fin ed in th e Act, a FAPE co m pr is es ‘spe ci al ed uc at io n a nd rel at ed

se rv ic es ’—bo th ‘ins tru ct io n’ ta il or ed to m eet a ch il d’s ‘uni qu e ne ed s’ an d su ffi ci en t ‘sup po rti ve se rv ic es ’ to pe rm it th e ch il d to be ne fit fro m th at in st ru ct io n.” Id

. , at *4
, ci ti ng 20 U.S.C. §§ 14 01 (9 ), (2 6) , (2 9)

. The ADA an d Sect io n 50 4, on th e ot he r h an d, fo rb id pu bl ic en ti ti es an d fed eral ly fu nd ed pr og ram s or act iv it ie s fr o m di sc riminat in g ba se d on di sa bi li ty. Id

. , at * 5

. Th e co m

pl ai nt he re is no t ba se d on di sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n. Exc ep t fo r Co un t IV (th e MHRA cl ai m ), th e co m pl ai nt do es no t us e th e wor d “ di sc riminat io n.” Rat he r, th e co m pl ai nt is ba se d on ho w t he

us e of is ol at io n an d ph y si cal res tra in ts fai le d to pr ov id e pr op er “ su ffi ci en t ‘sup po rti ve

se rv ic es ’ to pe rm it [J .M.] t o be ne fit fro m

. . . i ns tru ct io n,” i d

. , a t *4 , a nd ul ti m at el y

“ de ni ed [J .M.]

. . . th e be ne fit s of pu bl ic ed uc at io n.” Fi na ll y , al th ou gh McC au le y di d

no t “ in vo ke [] th e IDEA’ s fo rm al pr oc ed ur es to ha nd le th e di sp ut e,” “ th e hi st or y of th e

-6

-pr oc eed in gs ,” in cl ud in g he r in it ia l co m pl ai nt an d fir st am en de d co m pl ai nt co nt ai ne d cl ai m s un de r th e IDEA, wh ic h is “ [a] fu rth er si gn th a t t h e g r a v a men of [th e] s ui t is th e d en ia l o f a FAPE.” Se e id

. , at * 13

.

As no te d, th e Fry de ci si on is su ed aft er arg ume nt in th is cas e. Bu t, th e cas es McC au le y

rel ie s o n—

Moo re v. Ka ns as Cit

y Pub li c S

ch oo ls , 82 8 F .3d 68 7 (8 th Cir

. 20 16 ) an d Mus kr at v. Deer Cr eek Pub li c Sc ho ol s , 71 5 F.3 d 77 5 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 13 )—d o

no t ch an ge th is an al y si s. In bo th
, th e co m pl ai nt s all eg ed co m

m on la w to rts se ek in g red res s fo r no n- ed uc at io na l in juri es

. Mo or e , 82 8 F.3 d at 69 2 (“ The gr av am en of th e
pe ti ti on is a st at e la w act io n fo r da m ag es se ek in g red res s fo r th e br ut al in juri es D.S.

su ffer ed as th e res ul t of rep eat ed se xu al as sa ul t an d rap e whi le un de r S o u t h w e s t ’s

su pe rv is io n.” ); Mus kr at , 71 5 F.3d at 78 5 (“ No au th or it y ho ld s th at Co ng res s m ean t
to fu nn el is ol at ed in ci de nt s of co m m on la w t or ts in to th e IDEA e xh au st io n reg im e.

. . . Here, th e Mu sk rat s ha ve al le ge d th ree sc at te red in st an ces of po te nt ia l ba tt ery. All th ree in st an ces ap p e a r to ha ve res ul te d fro m si m pl e fru st rat io n wit h [th e st ud en t]

rat he r th an an y le gi ti m at e di sc ip li na ry go al .”). McC au le y d oe s no t al le ge an y

c o mm o n la w to rts as th e fo un da ti on fo r no n- ed uc at io na l in juri es

. In fac t , s h e

vo lu nt ari ly rem ov ed t he co m m on la w to rt cl ai m s fro m he r se co nd am en de d

co m pl ai nt

. Mo reo ve r, th e al le ga ti on s sh ow J.M

. ’s i nju rie s were ed uc at io n- rel at ed :

“ Defen da nt ’s em

pl oyees an d ag en ts ha d us ed is ol at io n an d res tra in t as a di sc ip li na ry
to ol
, fo r th ei r own co nv en ie nc e an d in vi ol at io n of th ei r ow n po li ci es .” (em ph as is ad de d)

.

Unl ik e th e Moo re co m

pl ai nt —wh ic h referr ed to th e pl ai nt iff ’s IEP “ so le ly to sh ow no ti ce to th e [s ch oo l di st ric t] of th e co nd it io ns th at pu t D.S. at ris k from ot he r
st ud en ts ”—t he co m

pl ai nt he re sh ows th e IEP is a “ cen tra l di sp ut e of th is li ti ga ti on .”
Mo or e , 82 8 F.3 d at 69 2. The co m pl ai nt al le ge s: “ Defen da nt rep e a te dl y an d

co ns is te nt ly vi ol at ed Pl ai nt iff ’s rig ht s by ut il iz in g is ol at io n an d res tra in t on J.M

. wh ic h wer e no t per mit te d wit hi n hi s IEPs .” (em ph as is ad de d)

. The cl ai m s here are ba se d on th e fai lu re to im pl em en t J.M.’s IEP, sp eci fic al ly reg ard in g di sc ip li ne

. Se e

-7

-Mus kr at , 71 5 F.3 d at 78 5 (“ [A] ti m eo ut -rel at ed cl ai m m us t be ex ha us te d th ro ug h th e IDEA’ s s ta tu to ry

pro ced ur es .”).

McC au le y

als o b el ie ve s t he co m

pl ai nt is no t s ub

ject t o ex ha us ti on be cau se it

se ek s rel ie f no t av ai la bl e un de r th e IDEA, na mel y c om pe ns at or y an d pu ni ti ve da m ag es

. W hi le th e IDEA al lo ws at to rn ey ’s fees an d co st s (wh ic h McC au le y se ek s)
, 20 U.S.C. § 14 15 (i) (3 )(B)
, co m pe ns at or y an d pu ni t i v e da m ag es are no t av ai la bl e. Br ad le y v. Ar k. Dep ’t of Ed

uc ., 30 1 F.3 d 95 2, 95 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )

. I n Fr y , th e Su pr em e Co ur t de cl in ed to ad dr es s whe th er ex ha us ti on is req ui red “ whe n th e pl ai ntiff

co m pl ai n s o f t he de ni al of a FAPE, bu t th e sp eci fic rem ed y sh e req ue st s— he re,

m on ey da m ag es fo r em ot io na l d is tre ss —i s n ot on e” t he IDEA pro vi de s. Fr y , a t *8
n.4

. Howev er, th is co ur t ha s no te d th at “ th e IDEA’ s ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t rem ai ns th e ge ne ral ru le
, reg ard le ss of whe th er th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s of fers th e pa rti cu la r type of rel ie f th at is be in g so ug ht .” J.B

. , 72 1 F.3 d at 59 5, qu ot in g M.P. ex re l. K. v. In de p. Scho ol Dis t. No . 72 1 , 32 6 F .3d 97 5, 9 80 (8t h Cir. 20 03 ). Se e Mus kr at , 71 5 F.3 d at 78 5 (h ol di ng “ a pl ai nt if f c a n n o t a v oi d ex ha us ti on si m pl y be cau se he or sh e

as ks fo r da m ag es ”); Fr az ie r v. Fa ir ha ven Scho ol Co m m . , 27 6 F.3 d 52
, 64 (1 st Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ [W] e ho ld th at pl ai nt iff s who br in g an IDEA-ba se d cl ai m un de r 42 U.S.C. §
1 98 3, in whi ch th ey se ek on ly m on ey da m ag es , m us t ex ha us t th e ad m in is t r a t i v e
pr oc es s av ai l ab le un de r th e IDEA as a co nd it io n pr eced en t to en te rin g a st at e or fed eral co ur t.”) ; Co vi ng to n v. Kno x C nt y. Scho ol Sys

. , 20 5 F .3d 91 2, 9 17 (6 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ [W] e ag ree wit h th os e co ur ts th at ha ve de ci de d th at a m ere cl ai m fo r m on ey da m ag es is no t su ffi ci en t to ren de r ex ha us ti on of ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s

un ne ces sa ry .”); N.B. by D.G. v. Al ac hua Cnt

y. Scho ol Bd

. , 84 F.3 d 13 76
, 13 79 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th at pl ai nt iff s can no t av oi d th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t by li m it in g rel ie f to m on ey da m ag es be cau se ot he rwis e, “ fu tu re li ti ga nt s co ul d av oi d th e

ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t si m pl y by a s k i n g fo r rel ie f th at ad m in is tra ti ve au th or it ie s

co ul d no t gran t” ). McC au le y ’s vo lu nt ary de ci si on to rem ov e J.M

. fro m sc ho ol
, an d th us se ek on ly co m

pe ns at or y an d pu ni ti ve da m ag es rat he r th an co m pe ns at or y ed uc at io n s erv ic es , do es no t ex em pt he r fro m

th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t.

-8

-Bec au se McC au le y ’s co m pl ai nt se ek s rel ie f av ai la bl e un de r th e IDEA, de ni al of a FAPE, th e cl ai m s ar e su bjec t t o e xh au st io n, b arri ng an ap pl ic ab le ex cep ti on

.

II.

The re are th ree ex cep ti on s to th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t: (1 ) fu t i l i t y, (2 )

“ in ab il it y o f t he ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s to pr ov id e ad eq ua te rel ie f,” an d (3 ) “ th e

es ta bl is hm en t of an ag en cy po li cy or pr act ic e of ge ne ral ap pl ic ab il it y th at is co nt rary
to law.” J.B

. , 72 1 F.3d at 59 4, qu ot in g Bl ac km on ex rel

. Bla ck m on v. Sp ri ng

fie ld
R– XI I Sc ho ol Dis t. , 19 8 F .3d 64 8, 6 56 (8t h C ir. 19 99 ). “ A co ur t deci di ng whet he r
to waiv e ex ha us ti on s ho ul d be ‘gui de d by th e po li ci es un de rlyin g th e ex ha us ti on
req ui rem en t.’” Id

. , qu ot in g Bo wen v. Ci ty of New Y or k
, 47 6 U.S. 46 7, 48 4 (1 98 6)

.

Exh au st io n is ge ne ral ly req ui r e d a s a m at te r of pr ev en ti ng pr em at ur e in te rfer en ce wit h ag e n cy pr oc es se s, so th at th e ag en cy m ay fu nc ti on effi ci en tl y an d so th at it m ay ha ve an o p p o r t u n it y to co rrec t it s own
erro rs , t o affo rd th e pa rti es a n d t h e co ur ts th e be ne fit of it s ex pe rie nc e

an d ex pe rti se , an d to co m pi le a reco rd w h ic h is ad eq ua te fo r jud ic ia l

rev ie w.

Id

. , qu ot in g Bo wen , 47 6 U.S. at 48 4.

McC au le y

co nt en ds th e fu ti li ty and in ad eq ua te rem ed y ex cep ti on s ap pl y

.

A.

McC au le y be li ev es ex ha us ti on wou ld ha ve be en fu ti le be cau se sh e, li ke th e Mus kr at pl ai nt iff

s, at te m pt ed to ad dr es s t h e pr ob le m by di rect ly co nt act in g th e

sc ho ol

. In Mus kr at , ho wev er, th e pl ai nt iff s m ad e gr eat er at te m

pt s to wor k “ th ro ug h ad m in is tra ti ve ch an ne ls to ob ta in th e rel ie f th ey so ug ht .” Mus kr at , 71 5 F.3 d at 78 6. The y mad e writ te n an d or al de m an ds to sc ho ol ad m in is tra to rs , c on ferr ed du rin g an

-9

-IEP m eet in g ab ou t th e rel ie f so ug ht
, an d m od ifi ed th e IEP to a c co m m od at e th ei r

co nc ern s. Id

. McC au le y , on th e ot he r ha nd
, al le ge s on ly th at sh e “ co nt act ed sc ho ol di st ric t of fic ia ls to ha ve th e is ol at io n im m ed ia te ly st op pe d, an d co ns en te d o n l y to

res tra in t on a ba si s o f n e c es si ty.” Alt ho ug h th e co m pl ai nt al le ge s “ [s ]he di d no t

c on se nt to is ol at io n in th e IEP te am m eet in gs ,” it do es no t al le ge sh e so ug h t t o ad dr es s he r co nc ern s wit h is ol at io n an d ph y si cal res tra in t th ro ug h th e IEP pr oc es s or

m od ifi ed J.M .’ s IEP t o re fle ct th os e co nc ern s.

McC au le y al so cl ai m s th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s wou ld no t ha ve ad dr es se d al l he r cl ai m s. Thi s, ho wev er, do es no t ex cu se ex ha us ti on

. Se e J.B

. , 72 1 F.3 d at 59 4- 95

. Alt ho ug h th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s m ay no t ad dr es s al l cl ai m s, th is co ur t ha s he ld

ex ha us ti on is no t fu ti le be cau se it wou ld al lo w “ th e ag en cy to de ve lo p th e reco rd fo r jud ic ia l rev ie w and ap pl y it s ex pe rti se ” to th e p la in ti ff’s “ cl ai m s t o th e ex te nt th os e cl ai m s ar e rel at ed to im

pl em en ta ti on ” o f th e IEP. Id

.

B.

McC au le y co nt en ds th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s can no t pr ov id e ad eq ua te rel ie f,

co m pe ns at or y an d p un it iv e da m ag es

. As dis cu ss ed
, th is arg um en t is with ou t m eri t. Se e J.B

. , 72 1 F.3 d at 59 5 (“ [T]he IDEA’ s ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t rem ai ns th e ge ne ral

ru le
, reg ard le ss of whe th er th e a dm in is tra ti ve pr oc es s of fers th e pa rti cu la r type of rel ie f th at is be in g s ou gh t.”)

.

Th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y di sm is se d th e co m pl ai nt fo r fai lu re to ex h a u s t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s.

* * * * * * * The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-